ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

iii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. 8. The learned authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in not allowing the charitable expenditure at Rs.20 crore, being donation to other charitable trust registered under section

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.” 20. Thus, as per Section 263(2

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

17. This distinction must be kept in mind\nby the CIT while exercising jurisdiction\nunder Section 263 of the Act and in the\nabsen ce of the finding that the order is\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of\nRevenue, exercise of jurisdiction under the\nsaid section is not sustainable. In most cases\nof alleged "inadequate investigation", it will

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

17-18 A.C.Ι.Τ.-1, (Central-1), Lucknow (Appellant) Vs. M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Respondent) I.T.A. No.623/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2018-19 A.C.I.T.-1, (Central-1), Lucknow (Appellant) Vs. M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Respondent) C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 ( in I.T.A. No.623/Lkw/2024 Assessment

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2. That the Ld. A.O. is wrong in contending and taking shelter under ITAT Order in Appeal No. ITA 821 and 544 / LKW -2012 and ITA 108/LKW -2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 so as to justify addition of Rs. 77,80,570/- and Rs 4,20,15,078/- to the total income of the Assessee whereas

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt was the unaccounted money of the assessee and was to be added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt was the unaccounted money of the assessee and was to be added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt was the unaccounted money of the assessee and was to be added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

III, Kanpur is erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order dated 12.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of IT. Act of the Assessing Officer be resorted.” I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 5 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 2. At the outset, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Cross Objections

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

III, Kanpur is erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order dated 12.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of IT. Act of the Assessing Officer be resorted.” I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 5 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 2. At the outset, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Cross Objections

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

III, Kanpur is erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order dated 12.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of IT. Act of the Assessing Officer be resorted.” I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 5 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 2. At the outset, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Cross Objections

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

III, Kanpur is erroneous, unjust and bad in law be vacated and the order dated 12.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of IT. Act of the Assessing Officer be resorted.” I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 5 C.O. No.3,4,17 & 5/Lkw/2019 Assessment. Yrs:2013-14 to 2016017 2. At the outset, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Cross Objections

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

17-18 A.C.I.T.-1, Vs. M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., (Central-1), B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow Gomti Nagar, (Appellant) Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Respondent) I.T.A. No.623/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years:2018-19 A.C.I.T.-1, Vs. M/s APCO Infratech Pvt. Ltd., (Central-1), B-9, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow Gomti Nagar, (Appellant) Lucknow. PAN:AADCA5639H (Respondent) C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 ( in I.T.A. No.623/Lkw/2024 Assessment Years

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

17 questions and to file documents in regard thereto. If the A.O. cannot be shown to have violated an any form prescribed for writing an assessment order it would not be correct to hold that he acted illegally or without applying his mind". The revisionary proceedings in the instant case are proposed to be initiated on the ground that

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

17 questions and to file documents in regard thereto. If the A.O.\ncannot be shown to have violated any form prescribed for writing an assessment order, it\nwould not be correct to hold that he acted illegally or without applying his mind\".\nThe revisionary proceedings in the instant case are proposed to be initiated on the ground that the\nassessment